Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:57:14 +0000
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org>, Ben Slusky <sluskyb@paranoiacs.org>,
       Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       legal@lists.gnumonks.org, "Robert W. Fuller" <garbageout@sbcglobal.net>,
       LKML Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>, info@crossmeta.com
Subject: Re: blatant GPL violation of ext2 and reiserfs filesystem drivers
Message-ID: <20060104155714.GD12824@mail.shareable.org>
References: <43AACF77.9020206@sbcglobal.net> <496FC071-3999-4E23-B1A2-1503DCAB65C0@mac.com> <1135283241.12761.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051223153541.GA13111@paranoiacs.org> <20060104110929.GH4898@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20060104115422.GA2562@mail.shareable.org> <20060104131805.GM4898@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20060104141607.GA12824@mail.shareable.org> <20060104144540.GN19769@parisc-linux.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060104144540.GN19769@parisc-linux.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2387
Lines: 52

> Yes.  You're not a lawyer.  Stop wasting everybody's time by trying to
> interpret a legal document.

Matthew, thanks for your abuse.  It was not necessary.

As a programmer, it is essential that I, like others, have a
reasonable understanding of the GPL.  It is not written only for
lawyers.  I did not nitpick something esoteric; I nitpicked something
which is important to real people who deal in GPL software which is
not available to the public.

> > That sentence is not clear to me.  Are you're saying that it was
> > possible to download the object code without source code, or that
> > _only_ the object code was available? 
> 
> Why don't you go and look instead of quibbling in the abstract?
> The binary is *currently* available, and no source code is.

Because this thread kept using the past tense to say what crossmeta
_have_ done.  As it's still available, why mention 'third parties'?
They're irrelevant; the violation is quite straightforward.

> > No.  They must provide the 'written offer' to the person downloading
> > the binary, if they did not make available source code to that person.
> 
> Why are you bothering to nitpick Harald?

Because he wrote something that, _without context_, is a technical
mistake that people sometimes make when talking about the GPL.  Like
you, I consider it my duty to ensure the GPL is upheld, and in the
proper way.  I appreciate now that Harald understands it well and his
statement was a simplification; others, may not.  I've been writing
GPL software for 15 years; it's not a new thing to me.

Please understand that I didn't receive these messages through a
legal-experts list, where of course I would be far more cautious to
comment; I received them on a software development list.

> Do you not realise he understands the GPL better than you do, having
> agreed over 30 settlements against people violating it?  He's even
> got courts to grant injunctions!

That's correct.  I did not realise that.  That's great!  But I haven't
known Harald's name before; and also did not know this thread had
reached the point of someone actually handling the legal end.

-- Jamie (goodbye)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/